2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Christopher C. Polking, Judge.  AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (12 pages)

            Matthew Marchesano appeals from an order establishing paternity, custody, physical care, visitation, child support, and trial attorney fees.  Matthew challenges the district court’s order of physical care of the parties’ two children with their mother, Taria Dillon, and claims the court incorrectly calculated his income for child-support purposes.  Matthew also challenges the court’s award of trial attorney fees to Taria.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon review, we affirm the court’s order and remand for an award of appellate attorney fees to Taria.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  Concurrence in part and dissent in part by Schumacher, J. (32 pages)

            The State and relative intervenors appeal orders of the juvenile court granting respite-care providers’ motion to intervene in child-in-need-of-assistance proceedings, identifying them as fictive kin, ordering placement with the fictive kin, and denying the relative intervenors’ request for concurrent jurisdiction.  OPINION HOLDS: After our de novo review, we affirm the juvenile court’s orders.  PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: I join with the majority in affirming the district court’s denial of the intervenor’s motion for concurrent jurisdiction, the portion of the majority’s opinion which finds the State’s claim on the attachment survey to be waived, and the conclusion that the district court’s analysis under Iowa Code section 232.102(1)(b)(2) was unnecessary.  But I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion as to the motion to intervene by the respite-care providers and the portion of the dispositional order which placed L.P with the respite-care providers instead of a relative placement.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Richard H. Davidson, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (6 pages)

            Jared Foote appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to set aside a default decree in a custody matter, arguing that the default decree improperly transferred custody to Nikki Wilson without a hearing or any evidence addressing the children’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing to receive evidence of what physical care arrangement would be in the children’s best interests, we affirm the default judgment and determination of joint legal custody but reverse the decree to remand for the limited purposes of conducting a prompt evidentiary hearing on the issues of physical custody, visitation, and child support.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (10 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  OPINION HOLDS: Because a statutory ground for termination was met, termination is in the best interests of the child, and we decline to apply any alternatives or permissive exceptions to prevent termination, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to her child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (13 pages)

            A mother and father each appeal the termination of their parental rights to their four children.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we agree with the juvenile court.  The State proved the statutory grounds for terminating the mother’s and father’s parental rights under paragraphs “f” and “h” of Iowa Code section 232.116(1) (2024) because the children could not be returned to either parent’s care at the time of the termination hearing.  And termination of their parental rights is in the best interests of the children because the parents have shown over the past twelve years of juvenile-court involvement that they are unable to make any long-lasting changes that would provide the children with stability.  And the children are finally receiving that stability and permanence in their foster home after all these years.  We thus affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (6 pages)

            A father appeals a modified dispositional order removing three children from his custody.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the juvenile court that keeping the children in the home jeopardizes their safety and is contrary to their welfare.  Though the father insists he has made strides, the children were initially removed for poor supervision, and after two years of services, those concerns persist.  Placing the children’s safety at the forefront, we thus affirm the juvenile court’s modified dispositional order removing the children from the father’s custody.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hancock County, Karen Kaufman Salic, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (6 pages)

            Parents jointly appeal the termination of their parental rights to their child.  They challenge one of the statutory grounds for termination, claim termination is not in the child’s best interests due to the parent-child bond, and request an additional six months to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Joan M. Black, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court’s combined adjudicatory and dispositional order.  OPINION HOLDS: We find that the child is imminently likely to suffer harmful effects and inadequate care due to the mother’s unaddressed substance use and affirm his adjudication under Iowa Code section 232.96A(3) and (14) (2025).  For the same reasons, we find that the child’s placement outside the mother’s care is the least restrictive disposition.  Accordingly, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Jennifer S. Bailey, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother and her child separately appeal the termination of the mother’s parental rights, challenging the best‑interests determination and asking us to apply permissive exceptions to termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Because termination is in the best interests of the child and we decline to apply a permissive exception, we affirm termination of the mother’s parental rights to her child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Kimberly Shepherd, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (8 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court’s termination of his parental rights, arguing that the State did not present clear and convincing evidence for the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (e), and (f) (2025); that termination is not in the child’s best interests; and, alternatively, that the juvenile court should have applied exceptions to termination.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm termination of the father’s parental rights to the child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Adam D. Sauer, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, contending that the State failed to meet its burden to show a statutory basis for termination and that termination is in the best interests of the child.  She asks this court to apply a permissive exception to termination.  OPINION HOLDS: We address the mother’s third argument—asking this court to apply a permissive exception—because we find it is her only argument properly formulated for review.  We find a permissive exception is not warranted and affirm the decision of the juvenile court.   

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Gary P. Strausser, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (6 pages)

            Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to two children.  Both challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the grounds for termination and request that a guardianship be established as an alternative to termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm on both appeals.